>> clerk: good evening. welcome to the 2018 meeting of the san francisco board of appeals. board president, frank fung will be the presiding officer >> supervisor kim:ed by rick swig, commissioner honda and commissioner lazarus. at the controls is the board's legal assistant, gary. i'm julie rosenberg, the board's executive director. we will be joined by representatives from the city

department. we expect the existing zoning administrator and presenting the planning department and planning commission, joseph duffy. and we expect representatives from the s.f.p.d. intls t-- as well as the arts commission. turn off all electronic devices and carry on conversations in the hallway. the board's rules of presentation are as follows. appellants permit holders each are given seven minutes to present their case and three minutes for rebuttal. people affiliated be these parties must include the comments within these periods. members of the public who are not affiliated with the parties have up to three minutes each to address the board and no rebuttal. please speak into the

microphone. you are asked but not required to present a speaker card or business card to board staff when you come to speak. speaker cards are available on the left side of the podium. the board welcomes your comments and suggestions, there are customer satisfaction forms for your convenience. we are located at 1650 mission street, room 304 between dubois and south van ness avenue. this meeting is broadcast live on sfgov tv and will be rebroet on frid -- rebroadcast on frida. dvds are available for purchase from sfgov tv. we will affirm all those who intend to testify. please note that any member of the public may speak without taking an oath pursuant to their rights under the sunshine ordinance.

if you intend to testify and you wish the board to give your testimony evidentiary weight, stand and say i do after you have been sworn or affirmed. somebody is going to be talking tonight, right? [laughter] >> clerk: i assume. okay. do you swear or affirm that the testimony you're about to give will be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth? thank you. we have a few housekeeping items. president fung and members of the commission, we have two items where the parties have requested a continuance. the first item is appeal number 15-125, gorr partners versus zoning investigator. the subject property is 660 third street appealing issuance of planning code section 174.

and the parties have requested a continuance to june 6, 2018. do we have -- we require a motion? >> so moved. >> clerk: okay. motion by president fung on that motion. commissioner lazarus -- i'm sorry. i have to ask first. is there any public comment on that request? no. commissioner lazarus. >> commissioner lazarus: aye. >> [ayes]. >> clerk: that motion passes. next request for continue wans is for a -- continue -- continuance is for item 7, appeal number 17-184 appealing the issuance on november 21,

2017, of a suspension request, requesting that building 2017/09/01 be suspended for the reason the condominium wasn't completed in accordance with the final approved plans for the building. on that, do we have a motion? >> commissioner lazarus: moved. >> clerk: is there any public comment? no. [roll call]. [ayes]. >> clerk: so, that motion passes. so, we will now move on to item number one, which is general public comment. this is an opportunity for anyone who would like to speak on a matter within the board's jurisdiction that is not on

tonight's calendar. is there anyone in the public who wishes to speak on an item not on tonight's agenda? seeing none, we will move to item two. commissioner comments and questions. are there any comments or questions? no. we will move to item three, the adoption of minutes. the minutes are of the april 11, 2018, board immediating. >> president fung: are there any corrections or additions? >> clerk: there's a typo that we can correct and this would be on i believe item number nine should be a lower case t under action. but we can correct that. >> president fung: okay.

motion to adopt the corrected minutes? >> commissioner lazarus: so moved. >> clerk: okay. so that motion is made by commissioner lazarus -- i'm sorry. president fung, you made the motion and commissioner lazarus -- >> commissioner lazarus: aye. >> clerk: once again, this is my second meeting. is there public comment on the adoption of the meetings? for some reason i don't want to ask for public comment. okay. >> commissioner lazarus: move the adoption of the minutes as corrected. >> clerk: are you making that motion? >> commissioner lazarus: yes. >> clerk: thank you. president fung. >> president fung: aye. [ayes]. >> clerk: okay. that motion passes. so, aye thumb -- item four has been continued so we will move

to item number five. [reading item #5] we will hear from the appellant first. you have seven minutes. >> commissioner lazarus: please identify yourself for the record. >> my name is tom lalane. i'm an attorney representing jose's towing. >> hi. my name is jose badillo. >> we are here because we believe that the revocation was entirely inappropriate -- >> can you move the mic just a

little closer to you. >> president fung: gary, can you turn up the mic because it is not capturing him. >> okay. we are here to appeal the revocation of the towing permit of jose's towing because we believe it was inappropriate under the circumstances presented. in october of 2017, jose's towing received a letter of -- identifying a suspension and revocation hearing from the san francisco police department and that's attached as exhibit 1 to the brief that i filed. it contained a variety of alleged violations of code sections. none of which had ever been brought to the attention of jose's towing before this. it never received a citation,

notice of violation, a warning of any kind. you take a look at that, the letter, and it's fairly interesting in that it contains no facts whatsoever. it contains a variety of code sections that had been violated but nothing that would lead anyone to believe or understand what the police department was talking about. mr. badillo went to the permit bureau, talked to officer forness who had written the letter and he refused to identify any of the factual backgrounds for any of the allegations. and in fact he wrote a letter to mr. badillo, which is attached as exhibit 2 to the submission, telling mr. badillo that he could find out everything he needed to know by reading the quote.

i had to -- quite a ta-do with mr. forness and i was able to security what he described as the discovery i was entitled to. but once again, there was nothing in there that would lead us to believe that the violations that they were alleging had been supported by any evidence. i notice in the appeal brief filed by the san francisco police department that they make reference to a variety of different numbered -- citation numbered issues that they seem to also that were delivered to jose's towing and i can tell you without doubt that none of those were ever delivered to mr. badillo. they were never delivered to me.

we did have a hearing in january and the hearing consisted entirely of oral testimony from officer forness and oral testimony from an officer roka of the police department -- excuse me, the highway patrol. and one witness from enterprise towing -- excuse me, rental company. there were no documents submitted by san francisco police department. none of these citations that appear to be allegedly in the record. and once again, we were kind of in the dark about what it was that the charges were. the hearing was closed. i objected to the fact that all of the evidence, if you want to call it that, was offered by way of hearsay testimony. there was nothing that could support any of the things that officer forness was talking about.

and the hearing was closed. but the admonition that we would return in a month and find out what it was that the hearing officer was going to do. that hearing took about a minute where she got up and said we're terminating the license of the towing company and my decision will be explicitly detailed in a written submission in days. and it was submitted in days. and it is attached as exhibit 3 to this -- my submission and it was a rehash of the exact same letter that officer forness had written. no indication of facts. no indication of events that took place that supported all of their allegations. and at this point, we're still in the dark about what it is that they are claiming was wrong. the issue and really the result is that you've got a towing

company. you see all of these employees here in support of their boss. you're talking about the death penalty for this company and the jobs for all of these people with no explanation about why it's taking place. if any of these things that the police department is talking about in their appellant brief took place, they certainly were -- i would submit to you, minor in nature and not the kind of thing that should cause mr. badillo to go out of business. i would like to turn the mic over to him. he has things to explain and i know we're in limited time. >> as he was saying, officer forness has sent me a letter saying -- about prices and like i told him, we have the towing fees and we have attached it to

the first court or i have a copy here. it says rate -- [bell]. >> established by mutual agreement between the request and the towing company for what he keeps saying i'm at fault for. i would ask him several times, what is the pricing in san francisco. and he would tell me look at the california vehicle code. i'm a new business owner. i'm 22 years old and i started my business. all my employees have worked at previous companies from which i have learned how to operate my business and i have hired people to make it better. [bell]. >> clerk: thank you. you can have a seat. we will now hear from the police department. do we have -- >> good evening, mr. president, commissioners. my name is ronnie wagner. i'm counsel for the san francisco police department. i'm a civilian employee assigned to the legal division and i

received this matter and was asked to respond to mr. badillo's appeal. so, i did that. i filed paper. i hope that each commissioner has had the opportunity to review those as well as the appeal itself. chiefly i will speak to the legal points and authority set forth in the appellant's brief, which are failure of due process. meaning there was insufficient notice and opportunity to be heard by the appellant at the administrative informal hearing on the revocation. but the hearing itself lasted many hours and testimony was presented by witnesses, including, but not limited to one victim, which was the representative of the rent a car company that had complained against the appellant and the appellant himself was offered

multiple opportunities to address the hearing officer and adduce his own testimony in support of his objection to the revocation. officer forness testified partly to his observations. for example -- and this is even in the appellant's own exhibit. number one, that he had himself witnessed a violation by one of the drivers. it's at paragraph three and cites the date and time of the violation that officer forness was a percipient witness to. the citations, three of them that are enumerated and listed in the police department's brief are from the california highway patrol. that officer, the investigating officer as to each of those citations, officer roka, he was present at the hearing and did adduce testimony himself. so, even in very stringent evident yar rules that woulden

be hearsay. there's complaints from zit certains, victims whose cars were towed incorrectly. some of those complaints went to the district attorney. the district attorney has discretion whether to file a complaint against somebody. i can't speculate as to why misdemeanor charges were not filed or were not successful in san francisco or in san mateo county were citizens complaints of victims had been received. with respect to the notice, i think it's incorrect to say that there was no contact between the appellant and officer forness, who works in an administrative office of the mrifd.

-- police department. you will see the citations were issued in the night time hours which is typically when law enforcement patrol sergeants are on duty. officer forness works in the permits unit of the san francisco police department, which is mostly an administrative office. he did meet personally with the appellant. he did provide -- i think if you read exhibit 1 of the appellant's own attachments, he provided a substantive explanation of what the observed violations were or at least some of them were. and the opportunity to correct those. but even without a citation from the san francisco police department, there were multiple communications of different types. email, written correspondence and personal meetings between the appellant and the permits unit of the san francisco police department. so, he was certainly well on notice even before the

revocation issued. he acknowledges ample notice for the hearing itself. and i think that's right. he was there. he had the opportunity to be heard, which is the second prong of due process. the appellant himself as i mentioned adduced his own evidence. took the stand multiple times throughout the hearing and the hearing officer considered each piece of evidence submitted by both sides of the process. the decision was written, substantive in character and issued timely. so, for each of those reasons, the police department does oh poise the appeal and does believe -- oppose the appeal and does believe particularly in light of ongoing complaints continued to be received, we are more concerned for the victims of these offenses and we do

believe that the revocation was properly decided. >> i have a question. after you. so, after reviewing the brief and as the permit holder's attorney mentioned, this is a death sentence, you mention that there were multiple emails, phone calls in return. since you did read the permit holder's brief, why was that not in your brief to respond to that indicating and showing us when mails, which phone calls, when these were taking place? >> i see. well, i believe that the appeal process was restricted to just the four corners of the decision and what was adduced in evidence. >> no. i mean after you -- that's why you are furnished the permit holder's statement so you can respond to his. in multiple parts of his brief,

he indicates that the officer was uncooperative and would not give explanation of why the permit was being rev kated and you just said there was multiple emails and phone calls. yet in your brief, there's no mention of this. >> exhibit 1 itself is a full page document that shows the communication between them. but i do have officer forness here. i didn't conduct the hearing. so, i didn't adduce evidence. >> and the other question i was is that since this is for the revocation of someone's livelihood, i understand that there's law enforcement that gave testimony. but in your brief, i thought it was poorly done. i didn't see any particular case, any statements from any of the people that were affected other than just mild statements from the hearing. >> that's what i based the brief upon, what was adduced at the revocation hearing.

>> you keep using a term i have never heard before. what is adduced? >> when you enter evidence into the record at a proceeding. >> president fung: this is a de novo hearing and every hearing we have whether it is for a retailer, whether it's for a piece of real estate or whatever permit, an accusation is made and there's an appeal on that accusation, which has resulted in action, then we are presented with significant facts about what led to the issue rutting in the stripping of a permit in this case. and what we're presented here is hearsay. we have no citations. we have no -- we have

recitations from a hearing that's hearing. we have no citations in fact. we have no notice of violations which had been sent prior to that hearing to the person being accused that gave them opportunity to cure or respond. we have no police log that indicated that there was an issue. and there's no clarification. i would like to turn to the city attorney and ask him a question on this. turn this into a question. prior to the -- california highway patrol which has nothing to do with the city of san francisco police department. so, where's the jurisdiction? why would a hearsay from highway patrol, which is hearsay here because again, there's no report of a record that this even happened from highway patrol. why would that affect an action

within san francisco on a san francisco issue? why is it not a state issue? where is the jurisdictional piece? >> i presume the police department called the highway patrol officer as a witness. and i think it could have been competent evidence to support that, depending on what he said. >> commissioner wilson: it is that type of clarification that yours truly would need. the san francisco police department due to the action of the accused was forced to call the highway patrol. the highway patrol came and they wrote down a case number or action and that written documentation should be in our brief because we have to -- we're being asked to take somebody's lively hood away because this permit goes away, this guy's business is gone. this is fairly problematic, which is why i'm asking you

which is the documentation for each and everything that this person is being accused of? i'm not defending the fact he did or did not do it. but so far all we have is hearsay. so, do you have any documentation of all of the activities that this man's accused of? >> i have the documentation but i assumed it was on the record of the hearing below. and also, i didn't get served with the brief until the day that the response was due because it wasn't -- it was served on a sworn member of the department who was on medical leave. so, i did ask for a continuance but i got it the same day i had to file something. so, i filed something. i have officer forness here. >> commissioner wilson: that's more hearsay. >> they are a percipient witness to the events. i'm not sure how that's hearsay.

>> commissioner lazarus: you said that there were many instances and instances up until today. how many violations are we talking about? >> i'm informed and believed at least ten. i know there are two recent ones and i have at least one document. and i think -- i don't have adopt because i think one is currently under investigation by a different law enforcement agency. and once again, i don't -- once it is referred for prosecution, it is not our record. it belongs to the district attorney or whatever prosecution agency would consider it for filing. >> commissioner lazarus: thank you. >> clerk: thank you. please have a seat. you will have an opportunity for rebuttal. we are going to move on to public comment. is there any public comment on this matter? no? seeing none, we will move on to rebuttal. we'll hear first from mr.

lalane, attorney for appellant. you have three minutes, sir. >> thank you. the documents that appear to be in counsel' file -- >> you have to speak into the mic. thank you. >> the documents that appear to be in counsel' file were never delivered to us. we never saw any of this stuff. we never saw any of these things that are referenced in her brief that have citation numbers and the like. they weren't discussed at the hearing. i believe that your comments are on point here. this is an extremely important thing to mr. badillo and his family and his employees. he's already suffered tremendously from this because ever since the revocation

hearing, he's basically lost all his business from all of his vendors who have told him we're going to wait and find out what happens at the board of appeals hearing. even though your records or your procedures say that the revocation should be taken away and he should be able to go back into business, he's not been. officer forness has been telling all of the vendors that they should quit doing business with mr. forness because he believes -- excuse me, with mr. badillo because his license is going to be stripped. i think this is a matter that -- it is a tremendous imposition of wrong that's been done to mr. badillo and i request that you correct that. >> are you finished, sir? i have a question. >> what happens when appellant

violates a law in california, you may bring a lawsuit in court, generate small claims court. the court may be civilly liable for damages not to exceed $500 and possibly more. i have never gotten taken to court. no one has taken me civilly to get -- if i tow somebody, that's telling me i have to refund the person three times the amount and that's the -- that's what i have to pay if i got taken to court. never have i gotten taken to court civilly or anything like that. [bell]. >> and here what we have in my office is who people can report illegal towing. they can report it to consumer protection. minimum times that we have been -- towing is unfortunate. people are upset when they get

their cars towed and we have fixed it and made it right to whoever we have towed. if we towed it wrongfully, which has been very minimal. [bell]. >> thank you. >> i have a question. in regarding to number two in the police department's report regarding the excess of maximum rate established by the city and county, i noticed in your brief it indicated that there was nowhere that that's posted. is that true or not true? >> that is true. >> i will ask the same question of the department as well. the other question is and i believe he partially answered it. mr. badillo partially answered it. in the cases that there was a wrongful tow or an incident that happened, were those clients made whole again? was there some kind of compensation? >> the only one that i can recall was one. the lady parked her car and she

-- what did she say? the driver called dispatch. unfortunately the way he worded it to the dispatcher, she did not understand. he said hey, how much does a person have to -- the customer have to charge at the tow yard. we told them it would be $353. all that happened was the lady had breast milk on her hand and said i'm going to be late to my baby if you don't drop my car here. the driver was already off the property. if you already off the property you don't have to drop the tow. the driver felt bad. he misworded and called to see if the price was $125. since he was already off the property he was nice enough to drop it. because of that, because it was only a drop fee he charged off the property to not make the lady pay an uber or taxi cab he

only charged her $335 and that's when it was a wrongful tow. >> commissioner lazarus: is that the only incident that you can remember sir? >> yes. >> i have a question. would you please address the issue of you taking on another driver that was not properly licensed? >> that driver? what happened that day was i was at my tow yard. officer forness walked into my tow yard and i used to be a big aaa contractor. i saw whole san francisco. we had another station i was opening another station, another towing company in concorde and he was working out of concorde. he was coming in that friday i believe picking up his check or filling out the truck with our df. and the officer walked in and said why doesn't he have the permit and the driver said i

don't work here in san francisco. i work out of concorde and he said well every driver has to have a tow permit but not if he is working inside san francisco. he just comes to pick up the check because this is our main base and we have our concorde station and that's what happened. >> so, he was not -- i read in the document -- i interpreted in the document that he was employed by you on a regular basis in san francisco doing tows without a permit. so, that is not the case? >> not in san francisco. he does tows in concorde. and if we could pull the record for all the tows he does in concorde, but not in san francisco. >> and under oath you are telling me in concorde he is fully licensed? >> yes. >> okay. thank you. >> clerk: thank you. we will hear from the department now. the police department. you have three minutes. >> i don't think i could cover in three minutes, but i will

try. >> clerk: please identify yourself. >> officer forness for the police department. these are all the complaints i got from the d.a.'s office. enterprise rental car, people that call daily. like i explained to mr. badillo, i have been to his location more than once. we have emailed and talked on the phone. discovery was given to mr. lalane. he spoke to me and e maltd me and i gave him -- emailed me and i gave him a huge packet. i have never spoken to any of the vendors as what he is saying to you. i don't know where he says -- i never spoke to them. i received numerous complaints daily as i told mr. badillo. it's not like i go out and look for complaincomplaints. they come to me. i have police reports documenting incidents where vehicles were taken without organization. they were held for an extended period of time causing the owner

of the vehicle either corporate or private parties to pay exorbitant fees when they went to pick them up. chp monitors the commercial vehicles in the city. when there's accident scenes they are dispatched out. the problem with mr. badillo's company is we have drivers that show up, offer to help a stranded driver in an accident, take a vehicle to their location in the bayview, which is off of yosemite or underwood, which actually he works at underwood but he has another lot not permitted on yosemite. then when the customer comes there and can't find their vehicle, they tell them you have to pay us this amount of money if you want your car back. as far as citations, there's citations numerous from the chp. a lot of his drivers -- some of them drive without permits. they are not permitted to drive

for him nor mr. mejia that i spoke to when i talked to him drove for him but didn't drive one of his vehicles out of compliance. like i said, a lot of the complaints come from d.a.s. i can read you the complaint that he speaks to regarding the individual whose car that was hooked up or towed. the actual bill was $460 to pick it up on two wheels and set it back down. and i can read you her complaint. [bell]. >> do you want to hear it? >> president fung: you have 30 seconds. continue. >> this is a complaint i got from her. on 11/14/17 i entered the parking lot to find my car on a tow truck. the person operating the tow truck was next to the car so i let them know i was the owner of the vehicle and asked what could i do to prevent my car from being towed. the person driving the truck ignored me, would not make eye contact with me or respond to

me. [bell]. >> he proceeded to make a phone call unrelated to my car while i stood there eventually he ended the phone call and finally turned to me and handed me a business card and said i could pick up my car at the location listed on the card. i let him know that i needed my car and was on my way to pick up my 7-month-old baby. he was incredibly rude. i begged him to allow me to get inside the car so i could at least take out the breast milk in my car. he continued to ignore me. i asked if there was someone i could call and he would not let me know who i could call or even talk to me. eventually he got on his phone and called someone and said don't worry, she's going to pay. i got off the phone and told me i need to pay $460 or he would tow my car. he didn't explain any fees or tell me why. he asked me if i was paying with cash or card. he put his hand out awaiting payment.

he said pay me now or later. at this point i was shaking because i was so upset. he had delayed me from picking up my son. it was past time for me to pick up the baby from child care and i handed over my card and paid the money. the whole time still asking who i could talk to about this. he took my payment without talking to me or even making eye contact. once he ran my card he unhooked my car and drove away. i believe i was grossly overcharged and would like to be reimbursed. so, here's the bill. i don't know if i could put it on here. >> president fung: if you can put it on the overhead, that would be great. >> this is one complaint. >> president fung: overhead, please. hold on one second. >> the issue i have with this tow firm is it's not just the

amount of complaints. it is the way the billing is done. it's the way the business is ran. i don't think mr. badillo is a bad guy. we have spoken. it's just as a young owner he's not doing the things he needs to do to make sure his business is running properly. >> president fung: i think your time is up. we'll see the overhead and that's it. >> that's the invoice. you'll notice the charge. basically special equipment. i don't know what for. for picking up someone's car charges $460 to some person who is trying to get home to get breast milk for the baby and charging that fee seems extreme extremely exorbitant --

>> thank you. >> can you leave that on there. i have a question for the owner of the company. so, you just got before us and said your driver challenged them $125. >> that was the drop fee. >> on top of the other fee? >> no. it was miscommunicated. the drop fee is $125. >> so, can you look at the overhead and tell me if you recognize the signature of that driver? do you know who that driver is? >> there's no driver. that invoice is left blank. >> so, do you know who the driver was for that particular occasion? is he in front of us this evening? sir, you knew that this particular case was going to come up before us.

you're going to tell me you don't know who that driver is? >> yes, i do. >> is he here this evening, sir? >> yes, he is. >> maybe i misunderstood you but you said 125 drop fee. i see a charge for $360 and a charge from $100. >> can you explain the $125 drop fee and i see a charge for $360 and a charge for $100. i don't see a charge for $125. >> that delivriver was not able break it down. he nows know how to charge. the way it should have been worded was $250 for the tow. $85 for the tow. he misunderstood. he was a new driver. we have trained him. he is breaking the prices down better. >> commissioner lazarus: okay.

thank you. >> clerk: okay. this matter has been submitted. commissioners. >> i'll start i guess. looking at the brief, it was really hard. as commissioner or vice president swig indicated, this is a de novo hearing and this is extremely critical. this is someone's lively hood. i'm not inclined to take someone's livelihood away just on hearsay. just like law enforcement their star is their lively hood. i would not take their star away without proper information. it's sad to me whether -- also as vice president swig, i don't see anything in my brief that indicates they were done. the last couple of comments that were given, you know, i'll struggling with this right now because i don't really see there was a lot of brief information.

but given the information i just heard and that the permit holder really has no control of what was happening at -- during his tows is quite corning. $460 for a tow and then to treat the client like you're a piece of dirt is unacceptable to me personally. >> i would like to ask the officer some questions. clearly you have a dossier of evidence -- >> i -- >> excuse me. i can't accept editorial comment. when i ask you a question you can respond and i would just wish if this happens again and advise that you please provide counsel so that we can review this stuff, we are flying blind here and we have no evidence in front of us. you have a stack of paper.

could be all blank for all we know. okay. tell me, please, why is there no -- why are we here today taking somebody's livelihood? this is a very serious thing. where is the intermediate phase? if i was a really bad driver and sped 100 miles an hour in a 60 miles an hour zone, i would get a ticket because i would be stopped. there would be a little invoice that says you got to pay a lot of money and if you do this again, you'll get more money and if you do it a third time or whatever, your license is gone. right. here i would like to ask you, where is the phasing associated with penalty? i am going to assume that we've just seen that wrong was done. okay. that was the first hundred miles an hour in the 60 miles an hour

zone. where is the phasing where an individual gets a chance to pay a hefty fine instead of losing their business? where is the phasing where if it was mr. duffy standing in your position from the building department, there would be a fine because a wrong turn was taken? where is the phasing in this process that allows somebody to go on notice, pay a fine, be clear on a penalty other than this immediate track to your business is gone? >> i don't think it was immediate. it's been long coming. >> where is the phasing -- [overlapping speakers] >> unfortunately, i'm not an attorney and i didn't present this. i made my hearing at the hearing when we had the revocation hearing. there are citations. there's police reports where mr.

badillo is listed. i guess the burden of proof or weight is put on him as an owner to now municipal codes and the fees. there's a lot of stuff that mr. badillo doesn't know as a young business owner. but there are penalties which is drivers being cited, police reports were made, enterprise didn't want to prosecute him. they are a big company. but their vehicles were taken from them and held and money was extorted from them. i spoke with mr. badillo numerous times about what was going on, how his business was being run, what steps he needed to take to make sure it was in compliance. and all throughout the process, drivers were cited. a notification was given to him.

but as an owner if you're sitting back and your drivers are doing everything that you say you know or don't know they're doing, then it kind of gives you a little bit of insulation. because if your driver is cited you could say i didn't know that guy did that. i trained him better. i didn't know this guy was driving a car and he wasn't supposed to be in that tow car. so, mr. badillo kind of has the luxury of sitting back as an owner. but as an owner, you have to make sure that your drivers are educated and they're doing what is considered acceptable in the city and county of san francisco. the problem i had was that numerous complaints would come through like i said. some from the d.a.'s office. system from citizens. some from corporate companies and i spoke to mr. badillo about it and he said i'm going to do the right thing. i tried to give him the benefit of the doubt. there were citations issued. there are police reports. mr. badillo was just recently listed in a police report, last

week. and he might want to speak on that. but that came to me. he was involved in an issue with a tow car that got into an argument in the mission district and he was cited. so, those are the type of things like i said, i work in an administrative capacity. it is not like i'm out there on the street. i do go to his business. one of the businesses we talked about he wasn't permitted to work there and i would go there regularly to check up. i would see drivers picking up trucks. not just fuelling them, with cars on them that weren't permitted. these are all things and took a good amount of time to get here today. you're just hearing me tonight. i had a whole hearing that probably took four hours and mr. badillo was there. i'm not an attorney so i didn't present this tonight. these are all my facts. but it would take me hours to put them out in front of you. >> commissioner wilson: unfortunately, you understand --

>> i understand. >> commissioner wilson: this is the first time we're having this hearing. so, this is a new hearing. >> i do. >> commissioner wilson: and there have evidence -- even though it is a pain in the neck, evidence has to be presented, reviewed and offered so that we can make -- >> my biggest concern is that this is going to -- it's not going to stop. i don't think it will. >> commissioner lazarus: can i ask a question for clarity. when someone makes a complaint, does the person who is complained about gets a copy of the complaint to respond or does it simply go to you or some administration? >> they can get a copy. >> commissioner lazarus: no. do they get a copy. not they can get it. how would i know that someone complained about me? >> oh, you know mr. badillo? >> commissioner lazarus: yeah. >> usually i informed him. i spoke to him last week --

>> commissioner lazarus: no. no. focus. someone makes a complaint. you have a copy of it, right? >> uh-huh. >> commissioner lazarus: how does the person who has been complained about knows? >> the d.a. will contact them and the d.a. will contact me and i will investigate. >> commissioner wilson: she is asking specifically what is the specific process? it is not casual you might call him or not. >> it depends what kachannel it comes through. if i get a complaint, i will usually call mr. badillo and say look i got another complaint and i will investigate it, if it warrants that. >> commissioner wilson: what you are trying to get at it is not in your system they are automatically notified? >> no. because some complaints are not valid. >> commissioner lazarus: in a complaint is substantiated and valid, what then happens?

does he have to give -- does the business have to give the money back? is the person made whole? >> yes. the d.a. would contact or i and once we would argue the point that we think this was unfair just like this person, i think mr. badillo did send a check back. so, there's notification given through myself and there's the d.a.'s office. just depends on where the complaint comes from. >> commissioner lazarus: one final question. if the company makes the person whole, is that held against them in some way or is it a clean slate? >> i don't know if it would be held against them. it's more of the fact that it was overcharged to begin with.

like the $460 to lift a car and put it down. is that a training issue? does he need to train his employees or is it common practice? i don't know. that's what the investigation -- that's why we have the investigation to find out. >> commissioner lazarus: thank you. >> president fung: commissioners. >> commissioner lazarus: i think that part of the problem i see is that you have an inexperienced business owner and i'm not as discomforted with the hearsay issue. because it is not all hearsay. there are exceptions to the hearsay rule when there's documentation. but i do agree it could have been better documented. but we did see some documentation. and so, there is something going on here and while i'm sympathetic to the fact that it may be his livelihood, i'm also

sympathetic to the public. you take someone's car. you charge them $340 and another -- i mean the public has a right to be protected here also. so, i'm not entirely comfortable giving a pass to the business owner and say oops, someone needs more training. it's his responsibility. >> commissioner wilson: for me, recently we had a public health case where d.p.h. was before us and instituted a policy change of what happened to this particular body. i think the policy evidently with the towing needs some help or tweaking. i recently got my car towed in front of city hall. went to auto return. they were very cordial and friendly. i thought it was a reasonable fee. and we were out. and being towed is a very

traumatic time. you come out and your vehicle is not there. and then you get jacked by a tow company. i don't know. i'm kind of tossed. i could go for a continuation to hear for information. >> i was going to suggest -- we may be perpetuating the inevitable. but in all fairness and due process, i would like to recommend a continuance so that the evidence which the officer has in his hand, which could be a stack of blank paper. i'm sure it's not, can be presented in a formal fashion to us so that we the proper evidence on both sides and move forward with a true and just result. or based on one piece of evidence that was read to us today, we could move forward on

that. but i may be perpetuating the inevitable, but i would like to move for a continuance to accept new evidence on behalf of the police department. >> president fung: as long as both sides agree. >> commissioner lazarus: i feel a bit conflicted too. i think the burden was on the permitting agency to understand the rules of the process here. so i don't think ignorance is any defense of the law. but between reinstating the permit and revoking it, i wouldn't know where to begin. i think the only solution is to allow them to submit evidence. >> vice president swig: so, that is my motion. >> clerk: so, is there -- you would like to move for a continuance and allow them to submit additional evidence? >> vice president swig: and

request that the police department submit the additional evidence and provide the opportunity for the appellant to receive the same evidence and respond accordingly. [captioner switch]

he has been out of business for two months since the last order was issued. i would also -- something like that was in place it would be far better for us but i happen to be on trial on june 13 as well. so that date isn't good for me. >> can we do it as soon as. >> may 23. >> april 25 or may 23. >> possibly. gary, what do you think about may 23? >> that would be better. >> okay. so may 23. does that work for everyone? okay. and i can contact you tomorrow about the briefing schedule. so vice president swig moves to continue the matter to may 23 so that the police department can submit additional evidence.

and, the the apellans shall have-on-opportunity to respond. that motion. [roll call] >> clerk: that passes 50. i will contact you tomorrow. i have your -- thank you. so we will now move on o item 6. this appeal number 18-019 concerning the subject property at 5435 anza street. andra rroda and mona wu vs. department of building inspection and respondent planning department approval. they are protesting the issuance on january 26, 2018 to michelle lee of an alter nation permit to construct a new 100 foot accessory building at the rear yard including a half balance.

application no 2017/11/22/4735. you have seven minutes. please identify yourself. >> my name is andra roorda. my could on appellant will not be here but she asked me to represent her. >> can. >> clerk: can you speak in the microphone? >> i want to clarify points in the application of 2018. ms. lee my neighbor informed me she is building a greenhouse so her father can enjoy nature outside. her father is a very nice gentleman and i appreciate